By Max Lindberg •
April 25, 2008
Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.
April 26 marks the 22nd anniversary of the 1986 nuclear accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Slavutych, Ukraine. That one incident resulted in hundreds and possibly thousands of deaths, lingering health issues, radioactive contamination of a wide swath of land, property losses and on-going clean-up costs totaling billions of dollars.The Ukranian-American Environmental Association sent out a release reminding everyon of the risks of nuclear power.
I spoke with Kenneth Bossong, co-director of […]
Over in the TalkClimateChange section of the new Green Options Discussion Forums, my colleague Mark Seall recently wrapped-up a “Live Debate” on the merits of nuclear power. In addition to the excellent and informed discussion with nuclear experts and environmentalists, there was also a reader poll that concluded with some rather unexpected results. Nearly 75 percent of the respondents believe that nuclear power is good because it is a source of “abundant carbon free energy.”
Yes, this is a reader poll, and it is not a statistical representation of the public attitude of any country in particular. But it is striking that the 133 readers who did vote, were all doing so from a blog network called Green Options. Get it? Simply put, the public attitude towards nuclear power has undergone a seismic shift in recent years. This evidence indicates that this is not the same environmental movement that emerged in the early 1970’s.
But as consumed as I am with energy issues and the politics that surround them, I remain somewhat agnostic about nuclear power. Why is that? There’s no simple answer. Part of it is not wanting to reconcile the tensions between nuclear power as a low-carbon alternative with the ecological dangers of mining uranium and the big issue of transporting and storing nuclear waste. [If you want to know more about the specific dangers and problems facing nuclear power, Judith Lewis has written an excellent article in the most recent issue of Mother Jones addressing these issues in great depth.]
I would also argue that the reason I (and many other greens my age) are not particularly averse to nuclear power is because the pressing environmental issues that were building blocks to my own environmentalism were generally not related to nukes.
By Mark Seall •
March 28, 2008
Nuclear power – an abundant source of carbon free energy, or a dangerous and expensive power source with huge risks to our health and environment?
Britain may not have much choice in this matter as its government seems determined to take the nuclear route in an effort to bring Co2 emissions in line with its reduction pledges and mitigate its dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.
Announcing plans to enter into a technology partnership with France, the UK government proposes replacing its 24 aging reactors - which currently provide 20% of the nation’s electricity - with a new set of nuclear power plants which will double Britain’s nuclear power generating capacity. In doing so, Britain hopes to become a “world leader in nuclear technology”, according to Energy Secretary John Hutton.
By Max Lindberg •
March 3, 2008
Those steel tanks you see are some of the 177 that contain 53 million gallons of heavy metals, acids and solvents. They also contain plutonium, cesium, strontium and uranium. All are buried underground.
Of those 177, sixty-seven are confirmed leakers, meaning their contents are leaching into the soil and headed toward the Columbia River. Most have exceeded their anticipated 50 year life span, creating fear of a catastrophic tank failure.
Thousands of tons of radioactive and hazardous waste has been buried in unlined landfills and 450 billion gallons of liquid waste has been poured into ponds, ditches and drainfields at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the state of Washington.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to hold two public hearings next week on a request to extend the operating license for reactor 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.
The afternoon and evening hearings are set for Tuesday, March 4, in Middletown, Pennsylvania.
By Max Lindberg •
February 20, 2008
I was reading some recent headlines about Yucca Mountain, claiming the federal government will face heavy penalties and judgments if the project isn’t finished. Read beyond the headlines my friends, “we” fund the government, the money comes from our pockets, and it isn’t chicken feed.
The latest estimates are, that if Yucca Mountain isn’t finished until 2017, “we” will owe the utilities an estimated $7 billion in penalties, provided by law, because the repository isn’t finished. Bump completion time up another 3 years, and the bill goes up to about $11 billion.
By Mark Seall •
January 28, 2008
It has been said that any truly mature technology is indistinguishable from magic. However, as much as it has transformed our lives, the magic of electricity is something that we mostly take for granted – it’s readily available, relatively dependable, and cheap.
But this may change during the next decade as many European countries begin to face energy shortfalls. Many governments have been caught short as the decommissioning of old power stations, increasing demand for electricity and new EU targets for renewable energy have all coincided, causing many analysts to predict a demand / supply deficit of up to 20% over the coming years.
By Max Lindberg •
January 23, 2008
We’ve all read about the drought in America’s Southeast, and if it doesn’t let up very quickly, some nuclear power stations may have to either cut back operations or shut down temporarily because of a lack of water.
An Alabama reactor had to shutdown for a brief period in the summer, and officials in the Southeast now say it is becoming a crisis.
By Max Lindberg •
January 21, 2008
I’ve been going on for some time now about the nuclear industry, the possibility of more nuclear power stations going online, and especially what to do with radioactive waste that’s been piling up for 50 years.
The answer to the waste situation was supposed to have been Yucca Mountain, a remote natural structure some 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Since it’s inception nearly 25 years ago, Nevadans have fought creation of a long-term storage facility in their back yard.
I wanted to know more about Nevada’s opposition to the Yucca Mountain project, so I picked up the phone and talked with Robert Loux, Executive Director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects in Nevada. He’s been going head-to-head with the DOE and other agencies for a long time, and has some interesting things to say about the project and the DOE.
By Max Lindberg •
January 18, 2008
It’s time to sequester voters in Nevada, and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton headed for the jugular vein today by declaring if she’s president, Yucca Mountain will be a thing of the past.
The State of Nevada has opposed the Yucca Mountain project since it’s inception, and now, years overdue and billions of taxpayers dollars later, it’s still at least 10 years away from completion.
I never thought I’d consider nuclear power a desirable solution to climate change until I read James Lovelock’s latest book, “The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity” (see my previous post on the issue here).
Though I’m still not 100-percent convinced, Lovelock’s arguments are factual, rational and highly persuasive. So
[…]
